Okay, so the ACA dictates that women's access to birth control is a basic medical necessity, and Trump has so far been unable to repeal the ACA or the
birth control mandate that insurers must include birth control coverage in their most basic of policies. So, the Trump administration decided to go
religious on fertile woman's a$$es! I'm not sure how this works, this doesn't seem to be an Executive Order, but a Trump Administration Policy. Does
the Oval Office have the authority to create religious freedom policy?

Now, any employer can decide, "No birth control for you!" while offering another woman access to birth control, based on the employers moral gut. So,
single women could be rejected while married could be okay. Or, the employer could require married women to get their husband's permission for an
insurance plan that will cover his wife's birth control.

Workers now pay an average of $1,318 out of pocket before health insurance coverage begins to cover part of their bills, up from $584 a decade ago,
according to a new report out from the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s after paying an average of $89 each month for health insurance premiums.time.com...

Women who's employers don't approve of their sexual activity will now have to pay extra and probably have to go to a doctor other than their primary
physician for birth control now, something that the quality of their life depends upon.

Another question this brings up, why should employers' insurance policies have to cover anything that they don't approve of. Why should a
scientologist employer have to cover drugs, that they don't approve? Why should a Christian Scientist, who don't believe in medical intervention at
all, have to provide insurance at all? Should a Catholic employer be able refuse to provide insurance that covers vasectomies? Why should women's
birth control be the only moral issue that employers have dominion over?

Requiring insurance plans to cover birth control imposes a “substantial burden” to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution, and could promote “risky sexual behavior” among adolescents, the administration told reporters Thursday night.

Oh? How many adolescents get their health care coverage through their employer? Who thinks employers should dictate the health coverage of their
employee's children too?

And, you know what is really "risky sexual behavior"? Having sex without birth control!

I was wondering the same thing..
you know danged well this wouldn't fly if the employer was refusing to cover blood transfusions or children's vaccinations because of "religious
beliefs".
probably, the next in the line of fire will be maternity coverage.

It's like your entire life revolves around taxpayer funded birth control and abortion. Sad that your man hate is so pronounced you're willing to carve
up your own child and advocate others do not the same as some kind of power play. Who hurt you? Maybe if you got a job instead of posting ok the
internet you could afford to murder your own children?

no the man hate will come in when more and more women decide that sex just isn't worth the bs and risk that is forced onto by the stupid pro-life laws
and policies!!
using birth control, by the way, isn't carving up little babies, it's preventing little babies from being concieved. which by the way, might be
helpful if a women want to have the energy and time to actually spend with the man in their life!!!

Didn't the ACA make it so that adolescents up to the age of 27 were covered under their parents' policies?

Yeah, so? 20 somethings aren't adolescents. The White House said they were concerned about the risky sexual behavior of adolescents, (teenagers).
Isn't the purview of the parents, not the parent's employer, whether or not they want they 16 year old daughter on the pill, and to feel able to
discuss her questions and concerns with their family physician?

no the man hate will come in when more and more women decide that sex just isn't worth the bs and risk that is forced onto by the stupid pro-life laws
and policies!!
using birth control, by the way, isn't carving up little babies, it's preventing little babies from being concieved. which by the way, might be
helpful if a women want to have the energy and time to actually spend with the man in their life!!!

This is same argument as planned psrenthood abortions. Blah blah pay for my life and my failings. It's pathetic. I have a hunch you and yours aren't
the kind of woman most men are into anyway. At lest you've got your cats.

how is this relevant to the discussion as to what should be mandated in the insurance policies that people earn the money to buy into???
basically what this is doing is saying that if an employer decides it's immoral to provide the coverage in their offered insurance plan, it's okay for
them to just drop it and well, if the employee falls into the right income bracket.... no worries, the taxpayer will foot the bill!!!

how is this relevant to the discussion as to what should be mandated in the insurance policies that people earn the money to buy into???
basically what this is doing is saying that if an employer decides it's immoral to provide the coverage in their offered insurance plan, it's okay for
them to just drop it and well, if the employee falls into the right income bracket.... no worries, the taxpayer will foot the bill!!!

Maybe the people who earn the money for the policies ought to be the ones to decide what is in the policies they buy and not the other way around.

"Here. This is your policy. It *must* have these things because we've decided you are too stupid to know what your own needs are and this is what it
will cost because we decided what has to be in it ..."

As opposed to

"Here. This is what I can pay for or will pay for and these are the things I feel are most important for me to have covered should I need them ..."

You might surprised at what people will and won't prioritize. Not everyone feels that others have to pay for $5/month birth control when cancer care
or trauma care costs so much more.

Number one, I am 100% pro choice. pro abortion, pro birth control, pro- do whatever you want as long as your actions don't effect my life. Pretty
crazy logic, right? Now that that's out of the way, I'll go a little deeper....

Until now, employer insurance had to carry coverage for birth control. So basically, if you have employer health care, you're paying for birth control
coverage. Even if you're a man. Does that make a whole lot of sense to you.....? Or anyone for that matter? Didn't think so.

Next, employer healthcare (like all private policies, exception of medicaid) have had their deductibles skyrocket under the ACA ( even my old employer
deductible went from $400 per year, to $4,000 per year). Basically, you're still paying for it out of pocket ANYWAY!

On top of everything, my fiance recently got a script filled for 3 (three) months of birth control. Do you know how much it was?
................ $29.85. So $10 per month.

If you are going to start popping out kids left and right and blame it all on the evil, devilish republicans over 30 dollars every 3 months (that you
still had to pay before hand anyway) then you really need to sit down and reevaluate your life choices and thinking process.

Birth control was typically covered before the ACA, even by Catholic colleges and hospitals! But, nobody had made a list of what every basic health
insurance should cover. The ACA listed minimum standards for all health insurance policies, like children's vaccines, women's birth control, no annual
or lifetime spending caps, people with pre-conditions can't be excluded from coverage, etc.,

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.